Flikweert, Josien 11318953 Bsc ECB

Bachelor Thesis

Work-life Balance:

The influence of Job Stress, Extraversion, and Neuroticism on achieving Work-life Balance

Name: Sietje Johanna Willy (Josien) Flikweert

Student number: 11318953

Date of submission: 19/06/2020

Program track: Management in the digital age

Institution: University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Joanna Sosnowska

EXTRAVERSION, NEUROTICISM AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON JOB STRESS AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE

1

1

Statement of Originality This document is written by Student Sietje Johanna Willy Flikweert who declares to take full

responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no other

sources than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of

completion of the work, not for the contents.

Signature:


2

2

Abstract

The increase in job stress and burnouts among employees and the rising costs related to

work-stress related absenteeism, has led to the importance of research towards job-related

stress and work-life balance. Previous studies about job stressors focused primarily on

work-life conflict and gave little insights on the impact of individual characteristics. The aim

of this study was to examine if the personality traits extraversion and neuroticism had a

moderating effect on the relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction. In

this quantitative study, data was used from 163 employees who completed our questionnaire

about work-life balance, job stress, and personality traits. The results indicated that there was

a negative relationship between job stress and work-life balance. However, this relationship

was not moderated by either extraversion or neuroticism although extraversion showed to

have a significant correlation with both job stress and work-life balance. Altogether, this

research confirmed the importance to reduce job stress in order to obtain work-life balance

satisfaction.


3

3

Index

Statement of Originality ................................................................................................................................ 1

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Index .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................................. 6 Job stress ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Work-life balance .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Personality ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Sample and procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Measures .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Analytic plan .................................................................................................................................................... 16

Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Correlations ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Assumptions for regression ............................................................................................................................. 18 Simple linear regression .................................................................................................................................. 20 Moderation ....................................................................................................................................................... 20

Discussion .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Practical implications for the manager ........................................................................................................... 25 Limitations and further research .................................................................................................................... 26 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

References ................................................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: Data Outputs .......................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix B: Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................... 57


4

4

Introduction

Personal work-life balance has always been an important indicator of people’s

well-being and their quality of life. However, in recent years the work-part seems to dominate

this balance. Compared to a decade ago, employees experience more psychosocial pressure

due to an increase in workload and less autonomy (TNO, 2019). This makes it more difficult

for them to combine their work-life with their home-life. Because people feel easily stressed

and tasks such as running a household and taking care of the children can take up a lot of time

(Social and Cultural Planning Agency, 2018), it is important to achieve the right balance

between work and home life.

Furthermore, job stress is often a reason for absenteeism. For example, Hooftman et al.

(2019) reported that job stress was in 37% of the cases the reason why Dutch employees did

not show up to work. Although the problems of high workload and work pressure are

recognized by many employers, most of them had no solutions to reduce this at that moment.

On the other hand, more than half of the employees (57%) have indicated that they wanted

help to tackle their workload and achieve a better balance between their home- and work-life

(Arbobalans, TNO & CBS, 2019). Although coping with stress has negative consequences for

the health of the employee, it has implications for the organization as well. This is shown by

the costs of work-related stress absenteeism which have risen to 2.8 billion euros per year and

will even rise in the future (TNO, 2019).

Most of the research about work-life balance has primarily focused on the opposite of

this: work-life conflict. As Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) stated, people can experience

work-life conflict when the time devoted to one role leads to difficulty in performing another

role, e.g. time for family or leisure. Strains such as anxiety and tension can lead to the same

outcomes. Other studies confirmed this concept by showing that job stressors such as work

overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity lead to a poorer work-life balance (Skinner &


5

5

Pocock, 2008; Schwab & Iwanicki, (1982). Besides, other studies have indicated that stress

and lack of enjoyment could lead to a decrease in an individual’s well-being (Pichler, 2009;

Bell, Rajendran & Theiler, 2012). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to work-life

balance because it has direct implications for people’s mental health.

For a long time, the notion that individuals respond differently to their environment

has been ignored (Zellars, Perrewe & Hochwarter, 2000). This is also applicable to job stress;

not every individual experience the same levels of stress in the same circumstances. Crooker,

Smith & Tabak (2002) identified that different personalities act differently towards uncertain

situations at work and that this had implications for work-life balance satisfaction.

Furthermore, multiple researchers found a relationship between personal characteristics and

job stress. In some studies, the personality trait neuroticism came up as a predictor of job

stress, which in some cases led to signs of a burn-out (Kokkinos, 2007; Wang, Repetti &

Campos, 2011). Other studies about people’s general well-being confirmed that neuroticism

had a negative effect on mental health (Costa & McCrea, 1987; Verduyn & Brans,

2012). Extraversion, another personality trait of the Big Five Model, showed to have a

positive relationship with both personal work-life balance and mental health (Lamers,

Westerhof, Kovács & Bohlmeijer, 2012).

This raises the question of whether the personality traits neuroticism and extraversion

of the Big Five Model can be seen as moderators in the relationship between job stress and

work-life balance satisfaction. Because the employee’s health and their well-being are

growing in importance, the purpose of this research is to identify the impact of personality

dimensions on the relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction. This

paper tries to answer the following research question:

Do personality traits neuroticism and extraversion of the Big Five Model moderate the

relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction?


6

6

The study contributes to the present literature about work-life balance satisfaction and

how to achieve work-life balance satisfaction. Secondly, it advances the theoretical

understanding concerning how personality traits have an impact on how employees act and

see things differently. Lastly, focusing on personal characteristics can help to identify

individuals who are prone to stress/burnout.

The paper reviews some theories and research on job stress, personality traits, and

work-life balance. Furthermore, the results of a questionnaire about job stress, personality

traits, and work-life balance satisfaction will be included, and the results will be compared to

the theories described in the theoretical framework. The results will lead to guidelines for

managers on how to reduce job stress and optimize work-life balance, using the different

personal characteristics of their employees.

Theoretical framework

Job stress

The international business world is expanding at an increasing pace. Because of

globalization and digitalization, there are fewer trade barriers and fewer transportation costs.

As a result, many firms feel the pressure to expand abroad (Hill & Hult, 2008). However, to

stay ahead of competitors, it is necessary to work hard and as efficiently as possible. This

continuing pressure to innovate and expand can lead to an increase in workload and less

autonomy, which are both indicators for job stress. However, this is not only a problem for

international businesses: small businesses are also struggling with this challenge of finding a

balance between working hard and creating a healthy work environment (European Agency

for Safety and Health at Work, 2018).


7

7

Job stressors and job strains. According to Spector (1998), stress related to work can

be divided into two major parts: job stressors and job strains. Job stressors can be seen as an

organizational factor that provokes a negative emotional response such as anger, frustration,

or anxiety. Job strains are the reputed results of the exposure to stressors, which can include

physical illness and psychological distress (Chen & Spector, 1991). Multiple studies have

agreed on the variables which act as organizational stressors: distinguishing between job-

related stressors and extra-organizational stressors. Cooper & Marshall (1978) have identified

the following categories: stressors intrinsic to the job (poor work conditions, work overload,

keeping up with rapid technological change), role in the organization (role ambiguity, role

conflict, too much or too little responsibility) and career development (lack of promotion-

opportunities). Furthermore, they also identified a category that looked at relationships with

superiors and colleagues. Overall, they found that when employees had a positive

understanding of their superiors and colleagues, they had a positive feeling about the

organization as a whole. Lastly, various problems that happen to people outside their work

environment can also lead to an increase in job stress (Dua, 1994). Examples for this are

family problems, financial difficulties, and the lack of social support.

The mentioned job stressors can all lead to job strains. Strains can be classified into

three subcategories: poor physical health (increased pulse rate, high blood pressure, high

cholesterol levels), poor mental health (low motivation, lowered self-esteem, escapist

drinking) and organizational symptoms (low productivity, absenteeism, high staff turnover)

(Cooper & Marshall, 1978).

Impact of digitalization. Although these stressors are still relevant nowadays, due to

digitalization there is a new factor that influences job stress: the use of communication

technologies after workhours. Nowadays, almost every employee has a smartphone which


8

8

makes it more feasible to stay connected to work. As a result, employees are sometimes

expected to be available after office hours to answer phone calls or emails. This has led to

many employees still working in their evenings and weekends, even when they are formally

“off the job”. Furthermore, smartphones can easily interrupt or distract an individual at any

moment (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). Because of this, the line between home life and

work becomes blurred, creating more stress because of the work-life conflict. This can also

lead to low motivation, more stress, and poorer personal relationships.

Work-life balance

Conceptualizations. One example of a job stressor that can lead to a strain is work-

life conflict (Adams & Jex, 1999). Work-life balance (WLB), on the other hand, is a concept

that focuses on the quality of work-life and its relation to the quality of life (Guest, 2002).

However, there are several opinions about what exactly can be understood by this concept.

Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-life balance as finding equal time or satisfaction

across multiple roles. When there is not enough time to perform multiple roles (e.g. time for

family or time for work), they see this as work-life conflict. Their study focused primarily on

time balance, involvement balance and satisfaction balance. Other researchers have focused

more on the satisfaction balance. Kirchmeyer (2000) saw work-life balance as “achieving

satisfying experiences in all life domains”, in which resources such as time, energy, and

commitment should be divided equally. Besides these definitions, there are also studies that

indicated that equality of time and satisfaction loses its relevance when the salience of certain

roles change because of various life changes (e.g. a promotion, a divorce, pregnancy)

(Kalliath & Brough, 2008). In addition, having a certain degree of autonomy about how to

control the multiple roles can also be seen as a concept related to achieving WLB (Fleetwood,

2007). To conclude, despite some differences, all definitions stated a clear focus on the


9

9

individuals’ consideration of how to divide time and energy between the home- and work-life,

relative to their circumstances (Reiter, 2007).

Work-life balance from a managerial perspective. Additionally, when employees

are satisfied with their WLB, this has multiple benefits for both the employer and the

organization. Firstly, work-life balance satisfaction has shown to have a positive relationship

with employee engagement. This indirectly influences the organization, because this leads to

higher organizational performance and a decrease in job stress and burn-out complaints

(Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014; Parkes & Langford, 2008). Secondly, work-life balance is also

positively associated with both job satisfaction and life satisfaction (Haar, Russo, Suñe &

Ollier-Malaterre, 2014). In addition, WLB satisfaction is also related to more productivity and

fewer turnovers and absenteeism (Bell et al., 2008). Finally, besides the positive outcomes for

the work environment, work-life satisfaction also has a positive outcome for non-work

activities, e.g. having a good relationship with friends and family (Abendroth & Den Dulk,

2011).

The initiative widely used by firms to help their employees find the balance of work-

and home life is workplace flexibility. Hill, Erickson, Holmes & Ferris (2010) stated in their

research that work-at-home in combination with schedule flexibility resulted in less work-life

conflict and had a positive effect on productivity. Besides, workplace flexibility also has the

beneficial effect that it helps to reduce workload stress.

Work-life conflict and subjective well-being. Lastly, as mentioned before, work-life

balance is a broad concept that includes the combination of the emotional, behavioral, and

time demands of paid employment with family, hobbies, and other personal activities (Bell et

al., 2012). However, this balance can result in a work-life conflict if people are too tired from


10

10

their job to perform their other role as a parent, spouse, or friend. Furthermore, if they are too

stressed to make time for personal relaxation, it can result in less enjoyment in general

(Pichler, 2009). Because work-life conflict and role conflict influence work-life balance, the

first hypothesis is:

H1: Job stress has a negative effect on personal work-life balance satisfaction.

Personality

The Big Five. Crooker et al. (2002) identified that different personalities act

differently towards uncertain situations at work, which in turn has an impact on the work-life

balance satisfaction. A way of describing personality is by using the Big Five personality

traits. This model states that most characteristics can be described through the following five

personality dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and

Openness to experience (Goldberg, 1990). This research is focused on the Extraversion

dimensions and the Neuroticism dimensions because previous studies showed that both

personality traits have a strong correlation with subjective well-being and happiness (Lamers

et al., 2012, Verduyn & Brans, 2012).

Extraversion, neuroticism and, subjective well-being. There are many studies

about neuroticism and extraversion which look at these personality traits in comparison with

mental health. People who score high on the extraversion scale often experience intense

positive emotions for a long time. In contrast, people who score high on the neuroticism scale

experience often negative emotions for a long time (Verduyn & Brans, 2012). However,

another study about happiness and mental health stated that extraversion and neuroticism are

not each other’s opposites when it comes to experiencing happiness. Neither there was proof

that more of one characteristic means less of the other (Costa & McCrae, 1980). This


11

11

confirms that people can experience both high levels of neuroticism and high levels of

extraversion.

Extraversion. A high level of extraversion is associated with being talkative, active,

assertive, social, and gregarious (Goldberg, 1990). This personality trait is also related to

being cheerful, optimistic, and energetic (Zellars et al., 2000). On the contrary, introverts

(individuals who score low on extraversion) are seen as quiet, shy, reserved, and silent.

Watson & Clark (1997) stated that extraverts, compared to introverts, view themselves as

more positively engaged in situations in life. They also argued that there are six features

related to extraversion. These features are (1) being venturesome (feelings of excitement,

desire for change), (2) affiliation (feelings of warmth), (3) positive affective (feelings of joy

and enthusiasm), (4) energy (feeling active and energetic), (5) ascendance (feeling

dominant) and (6) ambition (discipline, valuing achievement). Pavot, Diener & Fuijita (1990)

stated that for extraverts the engagement in social activities helps to increase their positive

emotions. Furthermore, people who experience positive emotions tend to report fewer strains

related to work, compared to pessimistic individuals. The researchers found that optimists

talked more about potential problems with their supervisors, colleagues, family, and friends,

which had a positive outcome (Chen, Popovich & Kogan, 1997). Because they communicated

more, they perceived fewer role stressors and were more easily able to overcome stressful

activities due to positive support. Furthermore, a high level of extraversion is also associated

with more positive thoughts about the future which leads to less emotional exhaustion

(Bakker, Van Der Zee, Lewig & Dollard, 2006; Eastburg, Williamson, Gorsuch Ridley, 1994;

Piedmont, 1993). Concluding, because extraverted people experience more positiveness and

are better in communicating about potential stressors, the second hypothesis is:


12

12

H2: People with a high level of extraversion experience less job stress and more

work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of extraversion.

Neuroticism. High levels of neuroticism are associated with being anxious, depressed,

angry, emotional, worried, and insecure (Goldberg, 1990). Other traits related to neuroticism

are low self-esteem, fearfulness, social anxiety, and helplessness. In general, people who

score high on this trait, show negative relationships with almost all forms of career self-

efficacy (Hartman & Betz, 2007). Because people that score high on neuroticism experience

high levels of anxiety and lower levels of self-esteem, they are less prone toward setting

ambitious life goals (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). However, when they need to set

goals for themselves, they tend to set them extremely high. Consequently, this results in

negative feelings and disappointment about themselves, which are strengthened by their lack

of motivation to go through with it (Bakker et al., 2006).

Neuroticism is also negatively associated with coping mechanisms: individuals are

more likely to use avoiding or distracting mechanisms which makes it hard to control

themselves and to set priorities (Costa & McCrea, 1987). Furthermore, they are also prone to

worry and have more doubts, compared to people who score low on neuroticism. Because

they have the tendency to expect the worst from a situation and become easily frustrated, they

perceive more job stressors and strain. This leads to higher levels of emotional exhaustion

(Zellars et al., 2000) and negative emotionality (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). These consequences

are in line with a review of the relationship between personality and work-related fatigue.

This review indicated that high scorers on neuroticism had a heightened perception of fatigue

symptoms, including emotional exhaustion (De Vries & Van Heck, 2002).

All in all, the reason why people with high levels of neuroticism are expected to

experience more job stress and a less great work-life balance satisfaction is because of their


13

13

emotional instability, the disposition to worry, and negative relationships with career-efficacy.

Hence, the third hypothesis is:

H3: People with a high level of neuroticism experience more job stress and less

work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of neuroticism.

- H3 - H1

- + H2

Model 1: Neuroticism and extraversion as moderators on the relationship between job stress

and work-life balance satisfaction.

Methods

Sample and procedure

In this research about the influence of job stress on work-life balance satisfaction and

how this is moderated by extraversion and neuroticism, a cross-sectional design is used. The

data for this research is obtained by questionnaires, which were developed in the platform

Qualtrics. The respondents were found through personal contacts, such as family members or

friends. This sampling method can be seen as convenience sampling. An important criterium

Job stress Work-life balance

Neuroticism

Extraversion


14

14

for finding participants was that they had to be employed at the moment of participating in the

questionnaire; it did not matter if this was full-time or part-time.

In order to obtain a larger sample, the respondents were collected together with four

other students. They also looked at personality in relationship to WLB but studied different

predictor variables. Therefore, the data in this questionnaire contained more variables and

scales than that were used in this particular study. Furthermore, the demographics age,

gender, and education were also included in the questionnaire.

In total, 250 people were approached. The data collection took place over a period of

six days. The number of received questionnaires was 180. Because everyone was supposed to

reach out to 50 people, the response rate can be calculated as 72%. From this, only responses

who completed the entire questionnaire were included in the analysis, which resulted in

deleting 11 responses. Furthermore, six responses were deleted because the respondents

answered that they worked zero hours a week. Because having a job was the only requirement

for participating in this questionnaire, such responses were excluded from the analysis.

Besides, one person did not include his age, so the number “-99” was filled in as a sign of the

missing value. Concluding, 16 responses were removed in total. Of the remaining dataset

(N = 163) 49.1% was male and 50.9% was female (Mage = 26.84, SD = 9.17). The tenure had a

mean of 24.86 months (SD = 49.66 months). The average working hours per week were 31.14

(SD = 14.34). Furthermore, the biggest part of them obtained a bachelor’s degree (44.5%).

Lastly, 89.6% of them had no children.

Measures

The independent and dependent variables in this study are relatively job stress and

work-life balance. Job stress was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never and 5 =

always). WLB was also measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied and 5 =


15

15

extremely satisfied). Both personality dimensions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale

(1= strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

Job stress. Job stress was measured with 9 items (e.g., “Does work make you so

stressed that you wish you had a different job?” and “Do you get so stressed at work that you

forget to do important tasks?” based on the scale of De Bruin & Taylor (2005). The internal

reliability of this scale was really strong (a = .91).

Work-life balance. Work-life balance was measured with 5 items (e.g., “My ability to

balance the needs of my job with those of my personal or family life” and “How well my

work life and my personal or family life fit together” based on the scale of Valcour (2007).

The internal reliability of this test is strong (a = .89).

Extraversion and neuroticism. For these personality traits, the 60-item HEXACO-

test was used. This test is similar to the Big-Five test because the Big Five Extraversion can

be easily compared with the X (eXtraversion) factor and Big Five Neuroticism is broadly the

same as the opposite part of the E factor (Emotionality) of the HEXACO personality

dimensions (Ashton, Lee & De Vries, 2014).

The parts which focus in particular on Extraversion and Emotionality / Neuroticism

consist both of 10 items. Examples of items used in this test are: “I feel reasonably satisfied

with myself overall” (Extraversion) and “I sometimes can’t help worrying about little things”

(Neuroticism). The Extraversion-scale showed internal reliability of (a = .81) and the

Emotionality-scale had internal reliability of (a = .77), which are both sufficient.

Control variables. To rule out alternative explanations, two control variables were

included. The first control variable considered is gender. One study in which interviews were

held with men and women in their mid-life, indicated that women are still seen as the person

responsible for the caring and emotional work in the family-life. Therefore, men and women


16

16

have different experiences regarding WLB (Emslie & Hunt, 2009). In SPSS, the gender

variables have been recoded into 0 = male, 1 = female.

The second control variable is age because another study showed that the people in

their older age group (55-70 years old) were more likely to be satisfied with their WLB

(Richert-Kaźmierska & Stankiewicz, 2016). In the questionnaires, age was measured on a

continuous scale, where the number described age in years. Because age is a one-item scale, it

is not needed to check for reliability.

Analytic plan

For testing H1, the relationship between job stress and work-life balance, a linear

regression was used. Job stress is the independent variable and work-life balance is the

dependent variable. To test H2: the moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship

between job stress and WLB, the PROCESS v3.2 macro of Hayes (2020) model 1 was used.

Wherein, job stress is the independent variable, WLB the dependent variable, and

extraversion the moderating variable. For the last hypothesis, H3: the moderating effect of

neuroticism on the relationship between job stress and WLB, the PROCESS v3.2 macro of

Hayes (2020) model 1 was also used. In this case, job stress is the independent variable, WLB

the dependent variable, and emotionality (neuroticism) the moderating variable.

Results

Correlations

The collected data has been analyzed by using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. The means,

standard deviations, and correlations from all variables including the control variables are

described in Table 1. The table shows that work-life balance had a strong significant

correlation with job stress (r = -.533, p = < .001). This means that when the job stress


17

17

increase, the work-life balance satisfaction will decrease. Extraversion showed a moderately

significant correlation with both work-life balance and job stress. However, in case of work-

life balance, this relationship was positive (r = .248, p = < .001) and for job stress it was

negative (r = -.330, p = < .001). So, this means that when people score higher on extraversion,

they show more work-life balance satisfaction and less job stress. This is in line with the

previous correlation between WLB and job stress. Emotionality had a moderate negative

significant correlation with extraversion, which indicated that people who score high on the

emotionality scale, are less extraverted (and vice versa) (r = -.301, p = < .001). Furthermore,

by looking at the control variables, gender showed to have correlations with both extraversion

and emotionality. The correlation with extraversion was a moderate negative correlation

(r = -.298, p = < .001) and the correlation with emotionality showed to be a strongly positive

correlation (r = .507, p = < .001). To differentiate between genders, the crosstab-tables

showed that male employees scored higher on extraversion and that female employees scored

higher on emotionality. Concluding, it does matter if you are a male or female for the

probability to score high on either emotionality or extraversion.


18

18

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

Variables M SD 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

1. Work-life

balance

3.51 .751

2. Job stress 2.01 .749 -.533**

3. Extraversion 3.51 .662 .248** -.330**

4. Emotionality 3.03 .668 -.051 .126 -.301**

5. Age a 26.84 9.167 -.091 .097 .215 -.139 .

6. Gender b .51 .501 .020 .064 -.298** .507** -.155*

Notes. N = 163. a Age was measured in years. b Male = 0, female = 1 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Assumptions for regression

To test the H1: Job stress has a negative effect on personal-work life balance

satisfaction, a simple linear regression will be used. In the regression, job stress will be the

independent variable, and work-life balance the dependent variable. However, to ensure that

this test would be appropriate, the following assumptions were checked: linearity, normality,

homoscedasticity, outliers, and multicollinearity. Firstly, the linearity of the main variables

was checked by means of a scatterplot. This scatterplot (see Appendix A.1) showed a

(negative) linear relationship. Although there were some outliers in the scatterplot, the overall

relationship was clearly defined. Secondly, the normality was checked by a normal P-P plot,

which showed that the residuals are approximately normally distributed. Also, there were

Frequency-Plots made for all variables individually. These showed that most respondents

scored low on the job stress scale, which is probably the reason why the linearity-scatterplot


19

19

did not follow the Bell curve of a normal distribution. Because of this, job stress was checked

for any standardized residuals greater than two, which resulted in seven extreme values.

However, by removing them, the normal distribution curve did not improve much. Therefore,

I decided not to remove them and to treat this variable and the corresponding results with

caution.

Next, again by a scatterplot, the homoscedasticity was checked. As a result, it was

concluded that the residuals are approximately constant. Furthermore, all variables used in

this research (including moderators and control variables) were checked for outliers by using

boxplots. Although the variable ‘age’ showed to have multiple outliers in the boxplot (see

Graph 1); there was no reason to assume that people gave a wrong answer to this question.

Besides, since age is a control variable, there is a possibility that it would result in a Type I

error by removing them. The outliers for the other variables were not extreme. Lastly,

multicollinearity was checked by checking the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) of all predictor

variables. The VIF was < 5 for all predictor variables, so there was no sign of

multicollinearity. To conclude, this means that except for some extra caution towards job

stress, the simple regression model can be used without necessary adaptations.

Figure 1: SPSS output: boxplot to represent outliers for age


20

20

Simple linear regression

Because the assumptions for regression were met, a simple linear regression could be

used to test hypothesis 1. Here, model 1 of the linear regression included the control variables

age and gender. Job stress was added to the second model. The results of the regression

analysis showed an increase of 28.0% in the variance that was explained by this model (R2model

2 = .288). This means that by adding job stress to the control variables, 28.8% of the variance

in work-life balance can be explained. The adjusted R2 model indicated that 27.5% of this

variance had significant value for explaining work-life balance satisfaction (p = < .001).

In addition, the standardized b coefficient showed that job stress had the strongest

negative effect on WLB, which was also significant (b = -.535, t = -7.886, p = < .001).

Furthermore, the data showed a significant F in the ANOVA table, which led to the

conclusion that job stress had a significant effect on all results (F = 21.347, p = < .001). All in

all, this means that model 2 had to be chosen over model 1 and that H1 was supported.

Moderation

To test both Hypothesis 2: People with a high level of extraversion experience less

job stress and more work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of

extraversion and Hypothesis 3: People with a high level of neuroticism experience more job

stress and less work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of

neuroticism, PROCESS v.3.2 macro model 1 of Hayes (2020) was used. The results of this

model are showed in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. However, the results did not support H2

(b = .06 , se = .09, t = .64, p = .52, 95% CI [-.12, .24]) neither H3 (b = .03, se = .10, t = .25,

p = .80, 95% CI [-.16, .21]). In conclusion, there was no significant difference in job stress

and work-life balance between people who differed in their extraversion and neuroticism

levels.


21

21

Table 2

Results for the interaction effect between extraversion and job stress on WLB

Variables B SE B T p

Constant 4.49 .75 6.02 .00

Job stress -.69 .32 -2.18 .03

Extraversion .02 .21 .10 .92

Job stress X

Extraversion

.06 .09 .64 .52

Gender .13 .11 1.21 .23

Age -.01 .01 -.86 .39

Notes. N = 163. Dependent variable = Work-life balance (WLB) 𝑅�2�𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙= .30

Table 3

Results for the interaction effect between emotionality and job stress on WLB

Variables B SE B T p

Constant 4.83 .66 7.29 .00

Job stress -.61 .31 -2.03 .04

Emotionality -.08 .22 -.36 .72

Job stress X

Emotionality

.025 .10 .26 .80

Gender .11 .12 .84 .40

Age -.00 .01 -.45 .65

Notes. N = 163.Dependent variable = Work-life balance (WLB) 𝑅�2�𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙= .29

Discussion

This study analyzed the relationship between job stress and work-life balance

satisfaction. The personality traits neuroticism and extraversion were used as moderators in

the relationship between job stress and WLB. The corresponding research question was: Do

personality traits neuroticism and extraversion of the Big Five Model moderate the

relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction?


22

22

The results lend support for the first hypothesis: Job stress has a negative effect on

personal-work life balance satisfaction. Thus, this means that when people experience more

stress because of their work, their work-life balance satisfaction will decrease. The results are

consistent with the study of Cooper and Marshall (1978), who indicated that job stress can

lead to job strains such as poor physical health, poor mental health, and low productivity. In

addition, too much stress can lead to a lack of time and energy to do other home-related tasks

or to take a moment to relax (Pichler, 2009). As a consequence, people experience less

satisfaction with life which has a negative impact on their well-being.

However, this research differs from the previously discussed studies in the way that

convenience sampling was used. Because this research was conducted by students, it is

possible that mainly other students were attracted as participants. Furthermore, it is probable

that students experience less job stress because they work part-time and see their job as an

opportunity to combine the needs for work, income, education, and social contacts (Peterson,

1993). Besides, part-time jobs or student-jobs are really flexible and offer the possibility to

adapt schedules to the employee’s preferences such as available hours and amount of work

(Rosendaal, 2003). This is also in line with Hill et al. (2010) who stated that great flexibility

in a work schedule could be a solution to reduce job stress and improve work-life balance.

Nevertheless, we did not ask our respondents if they were students, so there is no

actual proof for this assumption. Therefore, it can still be concluded that job stress and work-

life balance are negatively related.

The second hypothesis, people with a high level of extraversion experience less job

stress and more work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of

extraversion, was not supported. Additionally, the third hypothesis, people with a high level

of neuroticism experience more job stress and less work-life balance satisfaction, compared

to people with a low level of neuroticism, did not lead to any support either. The lack of


23

23

support of both hypotheses H2 and H3 were quite unexpected because this indicates that both

personality traits extraversion and neuroticism have no effect on the relationship between job

stress and work-life balance satisfaction. This is not in line with the literature, which suggests

that personality has an impact on how people experience WLB and job stress (Crooker et al.,

2000) and can explain the additional variance in job burnouts (Zellers et al., 2000).

Furthermore, Bakker et al. (2006) found out that both neuroticism and extraversion appeared

to be the most consistent predictors of burnout, compared to the other Big Five personality

traits.

On the other hand, even though the absence of significant values in the PROCESS-

macro model of Hayes (2020), there are significant correlations that indicates a potential

relationship between the variables. That is, extraversion showed to have a negative correlation

with job stress and a positive correlation with work-life balance. Although both correlations

were only moderately significant, it can possibly indicate that extraversion has an influence

on the relationship between WLB and job stress. The literature suggests that people who score

high on extraversion tend to be more optimistic and self-confident, which is positive for their

overall life satisfaction and subjective well-being (Kaur, 2013). Furthermore, because of their

social and talkative attitude, they easily engage in personal interactions with their colleagues

(Costa & McCrae, 1992). This makes it easier for them to tell their colleagues or employer

when they feel overwhelmed by something at work, which helps them to reduce stress. So,

although only correlations were found between both job stress and WLB, this emphasizes the

possibility of extraversion to decrease job stress and increase work-life balance satisfaction.

In contrast, people who score high on neuroticism tend to experience strong emotions

such as guilt, fear, and frustration (McCrea & Costa, 1986). Because of this and the tendency

to worry, they perceive more job stressors and thus experience more stress (Chen & Spector,

1991). Additionally, because of lower levels of self-esteem and the lack of being able to set


24

24

ambitious but realistic goals, they have the tendency to be really hard on themselves (Bakker

et al., 2006, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).

However, the results of the questionnaires showed a different picture: emotionality, as

a rotated version of neuroticism, had no significant correlation with WLB, neither with job

stress. This cannot be explained in light of the difference between the Big Five personality

traits Extraversion and Neuroticism and the HEXACO Extraversion and Emotionality

Factors: Ashton et al., (2014) calculated the correlations between the Big Five and HEXACO

variables and concluded that they can be considered approximately as equal. One thing that

can explain the lack of support of H3 is the current corona-crisis. For people who are very

stress-sensitive, it can be a relief that they can stay at home and do not have to socialize with

their colleagues. Furthermore, they experience more freedom and flexibility to work at their

own speed. Eventually, this can explain why people who score high on neuroticism, tend to

experience less job stress and more work-life balance satisfaction than expected in this period.

Important to note here is that the corona-crisis was not included as a control variable in this

study, so this should be tested in future research.

Lastly, there were no significant values found between the control variables and job

stress or WLB. Only the control variable gender did have a correlation with both extraversion

and emotionality: male employees tend to score higher on extraversion and female employees

tend to score higher on emotionality. The emotionality-part can be explained because women

tend to have more traits such as empathic concern harm-avoidance and help-seeking (Yoo,

Lee, & Ashton, 2004).

Concluding, although the findings indicate that there is a significant relationship

between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction, the other hypothesized relationships

about the influence of extraversion and neuroticism were not supported. This means that the

research question cannot be answered affirmatively.


25

25

However, because multiple other studies reported a relationship between neuroticism

and job strains and burn-outs, it is too early to suggest that the relationship between

neuroticism and WLB and job stress does not exist. Besides, this study did find significant

correlations between extraversion and WLB and job stress. This possibly indicates that

personality does have an impact on the relationship between WLB and job stress.

Practical implications for the manager

The implication of this study is that it confirms the importance of taking care of

employees’ stress. As previously mentioned in the literature, too much stress is not only

dangerous for the employee’s health and happiness, it is also negative for the organization as

a whole. People who are stressed are more likely to suffer from health problems. This in turn

can lead to absenteeism at work, which is quite expensive for the organization. Consequently,

it is really important for a manager to help his employees to tackle their workload and to find

a good balance between their home- and work life. However, as already mentioned in the

Introduction, many employers find it difficult to come up with a suitable solution to reduce

work-related stress (Arbobalans et al., 2019).

A possible solution for this is to provide workplace flexibility and flexibility in

schedule for all employees (Hill et al., 2010). Golden, Henly & Lambert (2014) pointed out

that these forms of flexibility had a positive effect on employee’s work-life balance and their

well-being. It is important to state that every employee has a different home situation, acts

differently towards stress, and has a different personality. So, the best way to implement

flexible working policies is by talking to the employees individually, ask for their opinion,

and give them the opportunity to speak about preferences and needs. For example, more

extraverted people get their energy from the peoples around them, so they would have a

preference for working at the office with other colleagues. On the other hand, less extraverted


26

26

people can prefer working at home, because of the distractions of other people walking

around. The same can be true for people who score high on neuroticism: by staying at home

they do not have to worry about other people’s opinions, and they can work at their own pace.

Concluding, these conversations can provide the manager with insight that employees

see and experience things differently because of their different personalities. Furthermore, it

could also help to identify which individuals are prone to stress or burnout to be able to

provide them with extra help or guidelines. Future research should focus on how to

implement this effectively by checking which sort of people work best with different forms of

flexibility.

Limitations and further research

This study has five limitations that are relevant to future research. The first limitation

concerns the way of sampling. The questionnaire that was used for this research was

distributed to 250 people, which should provide a realistic representation of the working

population. However, because the data for this research were collected by convenience

sampling, the chances are high that the people who participated in this study are highly

educated and have different jobs than people with lower education, resulting in non-

generalizable results for the whole working population.

Second, the scale that was used to measure job stress was really broad and did not

focus on the multiple job stressors that were discussed in the literature (e.g. Cooper &

Marshall, 1978). For further research, it would be recommended to include multiple stressors

such as role conflict, role ambiguity, and career development.

Furthermore, because some of the students in this thesis-group were not Dutch, it is

fair to expect that multiple international people answered this questionnaire. This can lead to

different outcomes because international research showed that the Netherlands as a country


27

27

scored really high in a survey on job stress and burn-outs in comparison with other EU-

countries (RIVM, 2013). In addition, work-life balance satisfaction varies per country, due to

differences in domestic income, global income, and healthcare (Noda, 2019). Therefore, to

improve the external validity of the relationship between job stress and WLB, stricter

guidelines must be used concerning the collection of respondents. Thus, for example, only

Dutch employees who are varied in terms of age, gender, and education level.

A fourth limitation is socially desirable responses. This can especially be the case for

neuroticism, because people may not like to see themselves as negative/emotionally unstable.

A solution for this would be an even larger and more diverse sample.

Finally, a problem related to the previous one is that the questionnaire was a

self-report study. This makes that people select an answer by themselves, which can lead to

unrepresentable answers for the actual situation. To improve the internal reliability, an

observer or researcher could analyze the respondents and help them to give an answer.

Conclusion

This paper contributes to the standing literature about the relationship between job

stress, work-life balance, and the influence on this by extraversion and neuroticism. Although

previous research primarily focused on the reasons behind the work-life conflict, this paper

takes a more optimistic approach on how to achieve the opposite: work-life balance. The

results of our questionnaire showed that reducing job stress has a positive effect on achieving

this balance. However, it appeared that the personality traits neuroticism and extraversion did

not have an influence on this relationship. In short, to take care of the employee’s wellbeing

and to reduce the costs of work stress-related absenteeism, it is important to provide the

employees with opportunities to implement some flexibility in their workplace and schedule.


28

28

Further research is needed about how to optimize this for employees’ different personalities

and needs.


29

29

References

Abendroth, A. K., & den Dulk, L. (2011). Support for the work-life balance in Europe: the

impact of state, workplace and family support on work-life balance satisfaction. Work,

Employment and Society, 25(2), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017011398892

Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work–

family conflict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(1), 72–77.

https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.4.1.72

Arbobalans, TNO, & CBS. (2019, January 31). Arbobalans 2018: Psychosociale

arbeidsbelasting en burn-out klachten blijven toenemen. Retrieved March 28, 2020,

from https://www.tno.nl/nl/over-tno/nieuws/2019/1/arbobalans-2018-psychosociale-

arbeidsbelasting-en-burn-out-klachten-blijven-toenemen/

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major

dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340-345.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility,

Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

18(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838

B., M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement Impacting

Employee Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106–115.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174


30

30

Bakker, A. B., Van Der Zee, K. I., Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2006). The Relationship

Between the Big Five Personality Factors and Burnout: A Study Among Volunteer

Counselors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 31–50.

https://doi.org/10.3200/socp.146.1.31-50

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job

Performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Bell, A. S., Rajendran, D., & Theiler, S. (2012). Job stress, wellbeing, work-life balance and

work-life conflict among Australian academics. E-Journal of Applied Psychology,

8(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.7790/ejap.v8i1.320

Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The Use of Communication Technologies

After Hours: The Role of Work Attitudes and Work-Life Conflict. Journal of

Management, 33(4), 592–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302552

De Bruin, G. P. (2006). The dimensionality of the general work stress scale: A hierarchical

exploratory factor analysis. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32(4), 68-75.

CBS, TNO, Hooftman, W. E., Mars, G. M. J., Janssen, B., De Vroome, E. M. M., & Pleijers ,

A. J. S. (2019). Nationale Enquête Arbeidsomstandigheden 2018. Methodologie en

globale resultaten. Retrieved from

https://repository.tudelft.nl/view/tno/uuid:de39e474-d807-4840-91d2-226f434b8a29

Chen, P. Y., Popovich, P. M., & Kogan, M. (1999). Let’s talk: Patterns and correlates of

social support among temporary employees. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 4(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.4.1.55


31

31

Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of

correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 398–

407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.398

Cooper, C. L. (1998). Theories of Organizational Stress. Oxford, Verenigd Koninkrijk:

Oxford University Press.

Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1978). Understanding Executive Stress. Retrieved from

https://www.springer.com/la/book/9781349030309

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective

well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social


Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, Somatic Complaints, and Disease: Is the

Bark Worse than the Bite? Journal of Personality, 55(2), 299–316.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00438.x

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The

NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13.

https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5

Crooker, K. J., Smith, F. L., & Tabak, F. (2002). Creating Work-Life Balance: A Model of

Pluralism across Life Domains. Human Resource Development Review, 1(4), 387–

419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302238434

De Vries, J., & Van Heck, G. L. (2002). Fatigue: relationships with basic personality and

temperament dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1311–1324.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00015-6


32

32

Dua, J. K. (1994). Job Stressors and Their Effects on Physical Health, Emotional Health and

Job Satisfaction in a University. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1), 59–78.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239410051853

Eastburg, M. C., Williamson, M., Gorsuch, R., & Ridley, C. (1994). Social Support,

Personality, and Burnout in Nurses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(14),

1233–1250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00556.x

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:

Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social


Emslie, C., & Hunt, K. (2009). ‘Live to Work’ or ‘Work to Live’? A Qualitative Study of

Gender and Work-life Balance among Men and Women in Mid-life. Gender, Work &

Organization, 16(1), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00434.x

European Agency for Satefy and Health at Work. (2018). Healthy workers, thriving

companies - a practical guide to wellbeing at work. Retrieved from

https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/healthy-workers-thriving-companies-practical-

guide-wellbeing-work/view

Fleetwood, S. (2007). Why work–life balance now? The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 18(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601167441

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216


33

33

Golden, L., Henly, J., & Lambert, S. (2012). Work Schedule Flexibility for Workers: A Path

to Employee Happiness? SSRN Electronic Journal, 4(2), 107–135.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2129520

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of Conflict between Work and Family

Roles. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.

https://doi.org/10.2307/258214

Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the Study of Work-life Balance. Social Science

Information, 41(2), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018402041002005

Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life

balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven

cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361–373.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010

Hartman, R. O., & Betz, N. E. (2007). The Five-Factor Model and Career Self-Efficacy.

Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 145–161.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072706298011

Hill, C. W. L., & Hult, T. G. M. (2018). International Business (12th edition). New York,

Verenigde Staten: McGraw-Hill Education.

Hill, E. J., Erickson, J. J., Holmes, E. K., & Ferris, M. (2010). Workplace flexibility, work

hours, and work-life conflict: Finding an extra day or two. Journal of Family

Psychology, 24(3), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019282


34

34

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). On the value of aiming high: The causes

and consequences of ambition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 758–775.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028084

Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work-Life Balance: A review of the meaning of the

balance construct. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 323–327.

https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.837.14.3.323

Kaur, J. (2013). Work-life balance: Its correlation with satisfaction with life and personality

dimensions amongst college teachers. International Journal of Marketing, Financial

Services & Management Research, 2(8), 24-35.

Kirchmeyer, C. (2000). Work-life initiatives: Greed or benevolence regarding workers'

time? In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior,

Vol. 7. Time in organizational behavior (p. 79–93). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 229–243.

https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905x90344

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality

Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8

Marino, C., Vieno, A., Lenzi, M., Fernie, B. A., Nikčević, A. V., & Spada, M. M. (2016).

Personality Traits and Metacognitions as Predictors of Positive Mental Health in

College Students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 517–524.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9825-y


35

35

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an

adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54(2), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1986.tb00401.x

Noda, H. (2019). Work–Life Balance and Life Satisfaction in OECD Countries: A Cross-

Sectional Analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(4), 1325–1348.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00131-9

NOS. (2017, December 21). Vrouwen doen minder aan het huishouden, maar mannen niet

meer. Retrieved March 15, 2020, from https://nos.nl/artikel/2208622-vrouwen-doen-

minder-aan-het-huishouden-maar-mannen-niet-meer.html

Parkes, L. P., & Langford, P. H. (2008). Work–life bal ance or work–life alignment? A test of

the importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in

organisations. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 267–284.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s1833367200003278

Pavot, W., Diener, E. D., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality and

individual differences, 11(12), 1299-1306.

Peterson, J. (1993). Part-time employment and women: A comment on Sundström. Journal of

Economic Issues, 27(3), 909-914.

Pichler, F. (2008). Determinants of Work-life Balance: Shortcomings in the Contemporary

Measurement of WLB in Large-scale Surveys. Social Indicators Research, 92(3),

449–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9297-5


36

36

Piedmont, R. L. (1993). A Longitudinal Analysis of Burnout in the Health Care Setting: The

Role of Personal Dispositions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(3), 457–473.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6103_3

Reiter, N. (2007). Work Life Balance: What DO You Mean? The Ethical Ideology

Underpinning Appropriate Application. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

43(2), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295639

Richert-Kaźmierska, A., & Stankiewicz, K. (2016). Work–life balance: Does age matter?

Work, 55(3), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-162435

RIVM. (2013). Overspannenheid en burn-out → Regionaal &

Internationaal→Internationaal. Retrieved from

https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/overspannenheid-en-burn-

out/regionaal-internationaal/internationaal

Rosendaal, B. W. (2003). Dealing with part‐time work. Personnel Review, 32(4), 474–491.

https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310477542

Schwab, R. L., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1982). Perceived Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and

Teacher Burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(1), 60–74.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x82018001005

Skinner, N., & Pocock, B. (2008). Work--life conflict: Is work time or work overload more

important? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 303–315.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411108095761.


37

37

Social and Cultural Planning Agency. (2018). Alle ballen in de lucht: Tijdsbesteding in

Nederland en de samenhang met kwaliteit van leven. Retrieved from

https://www.scp.nl/zoeken?trefwoord=alle+ballen+in+de+lucht&search-submit=

Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. Theories of organizational

stress, 153-169.

TNO. (2019, November 11). Verzuimkosten door werkstress lopen op tot 2,8 miljard.

Retrieved March 28, 2020, from https://www.tno.nl/nl/over-

tno/nieuws/2019/11/verzuimkosten-door-werkstress-lopen-op-tot-2-8-miljard/

TNO Monitor arbeid. (2019). NEA Benchmarktool - TNO Monitor arbeid. Retrieved June 3,

2020, from https://www.monitorarbeid.tno.nl/cijfers/nea?s=nea&tv=mentale-

belasting&qv=afl_burnout320&st=0

Verduyn, P., & Brans, K. (2012). The relationship between extraversion, neuroticism and

aspects of trait affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 664–669.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.017

Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work

hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied


Wang, S. W., Repetti, R. L., & Campos, B. (2011). Job stress and family social behavior: The

moderating role of neuroticism. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(4),

441–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025100


38

38

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and Its Positive Emotional Core. Handbook

of Personality Psychology, 767–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012134645-

4/50030-5

Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2000). Burnout in Health Care: The Role

of the Five Factors of Personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1570–

1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02456.x


39

39

Appendix A: Data Outputs Assumptions for linear regression

(1) Step 1: Checks for linearity

(2) Step 2: Check for normality


40

40

(2A) Individual Frequency Plots Job Stress

Check for standardized residuals (Job stress)

Work-life Balance Satisfaction


41

41

Extraversion

Emotionality

(3) Step 3: Check for homoscedasticity


42

42

(4) Step 4: Checks for outliers Gender

Age


43

43

Work-life Balance


44

44

Job Stress

Extraversion


45

45

Emotionality


46

46

(5) Step 5: Check for multicollinearity Job stress

Job stress, including moderators


47

47

(6) Reliability-checks Work-life Balance Satisfaction


48

48

Job Stress


49

49


50

50

Extraversion


51

51

Emotionality


52

52

(7) Correlation


53

53

(8) Linear regression


54

54


55

55

(9) Moderation – extraversion


56

56

(10) Moderation - emotionality


57

57

Appendix B: Questionnaire The used scales for respectively WLB, job stress, extraversion and neuroticism:


58

58

Documents

Flikweert, Josien 11318953 Bsc ECB